2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The plaintiffs are children of the deceased KimL (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died on May 4, 2006, and "B. The plaintiffs as co-inheritors of the deceased on November 1, 2006, filed an inheritance tax report after excluding 112-23 large 2,226.1 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") of ○○○-dong ○○-dong 112-23 large 2,226.1 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") from inherited property, and voluntarily paid inheritance tax of 854,440,426 won."

“1) The content of the disposition: Determination and notification of each inheritance tax of KRW 1,213,318,00 on the plaintiffs including the instant land in the inherited property (hereinafter collectively referred to as “disposition”) and the ground for disposition: The transfer of the ownership of the instant land to KimB, who is the husband of the plaintiff KimA before the death of the deceased, is merely a measure to avoid high-amount inheritance tax.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 6-1, and 6; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

The instant land is not the deceased, but the Plaintiff KimB, the husband of the Plaintiff KimA, and thus is not an inherited property.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Borrowing, etc. funds of KimB

The Plaintiff KimB, the husband of the Plaintiff KimA, operated the ○○○○○○○ ○, ○1 Dong 451-9 at ○○○○-dong 451-9, but around March 1977, he borrowed KRW 30 million from the mother’s mother, as construction funds necessary to newly build and relocate the △△△-dong 451-5, 197, and repaid all the principal and interest of the above loan to the deceased on May 1980.

2) The ownership of the land of this case

A) On December 21, 1973, KimB purchased 7,378,000 won of the purchase price from leapCC and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name, but completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on December 28, 197. < Amended by Act No. 3174, Dec. 22, 1977>

B) On January 16, 2006, KimB filed a lawsuit against the deceased for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of ○○nam District Court 2006Gahap2217 on the ground that the deceased borrowed KRW 30 million from the deceased on or around March 16, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land in order to secure the above loan obligation, but on or around May 1980, he paid the principal and interest of the above loan obligation. The deceased filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of ○○○nam District Court 2006Gahap2217 on or around May 1980. The deceased submitted a written response to the purport that he recognizes all his allegations on or around February 23, 2006. Accordingly, on March 16, 2006, the deceased was sentenced to the execution of the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the land in this case, and the judgment on the above land became final and conclusive on the ground of the above final judgment.

3) Exercise of rights to the land of this case

가) 김DD은 망인의 이름이 자신의 망부(亡父)의 이름과 같은 것을 기화로 1995. 3. 4. 이 사건 토지에 관하여 상속을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다.

B) On February 25, 1997, KimB entered into a delegation contract with KimE-soo with the starting amount of KRW 8.5 million and the contingent fee of KRW 5 million with respect to the claim for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of KimD. According to the delegation contract above, KimE applied for civil conciliation under the name of the deceased as ○○○○ branch court 97.966, on December 23, 1997, GimD decided on December 23, 1997 as a substitute for conciliation of the contents that "the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is implemented" with respect to the land in this case, and on March 26, 1998, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of KimD was cancelled.

C) On May 9, 2006, KimB claimed that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the creation of superficies consisting of 2,210,00,000 won for the land in the name of the debtor, the maximum debt amount of the deceased and the non-party company, which was made under the name of the non-party company selling the land in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"). The registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the creation of superficies is invalid by the false competitive agreement concluded between the deceased and the non-party company without any monetary loan relationship. The non-party company filed a lawsuit against the non-party company claiming the cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage under the ○○ branch of ○○ branch of 2006 and 2604, and on December 15, 2006, the judgment became final and conclusive as it is (the above lawsuit was proved that the non-party company borrowed KRW 30 million from the deceased and did not complete the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the deceased's.

D) Meanwhile, from around 1989 to around 2002, KimB had the KimF, who had worked as an engineer of the vehicle system of the △△ Hospital in Do, operated the parking lot using the instant land. around 2002, KimF accepted a request from ○○○○○ city to use the said land as a public parking lot, and then allowed KimF to obtain the seal of the deceased, who is the registered titleholder of the said land, on the written consent to use the land. In addition, KimB had the maximumG, who had tried to manage its property by his own will, set the instant land into the office of the neighboring licensed real estate agent, but did not buy and sell the said land. < Amended by Act No. 632, Mar. 3, 2000; Act No. 6438, Oct. 10, 201; Act No. 6980, Jun. 6, 2003; Act No. 7688, Aug. 4, 2005>

4) The state of health of the Deceased

“The deceased was born on June 18, 1908 (the age of 97 years old at the time of death) and re-hospitalize No. 1 on November 10, 2005 to December 15, 2005, from January 4, 2006 to February 17, 2006, after receiving hospitalized treatment at the Hospital of ASEAN due to high blood pressure, heart failure, chronic re-explosion, chronic re-explosion, No. 1 on February 17, 2006 to 3G evidence No. 1 on February 17, 2006, after living at his own house without any special reason, and living on March 7, 2006, at 1 to 3G evidence No. 1 on May 14, 2006, 1 to 4G evidence No. 9 on May 14, 2006, 1 to 3G evidence No.

C. Determination

1) In light of the taxation system based on the means of acquiring the property by acquiring the property without compensation due to inheritance, etc., if a real estate was actually disposed of by a sales contract, etc. one year prior to the commencement of inheritance, even if the registration on the real estate still exists in the name of the inheritee, it shall not be included in the inherited property. However, if it can be deemed that the real estate in the name of the inheritee prior to the commencement of inheritance actually belongs to the inheritee, such as cancellation of the registration on the transfer of ownership due to the cause invalidation, it may be included in the inherited property. In such a case, even if the registration on the real estate in the name of the inheritee prior to the commencement of inheritance was cancelled, the tax authority must prove that the real estate actually belonged to the inheritee, such as the cancellation of the registration on the

However, in order to prove the above taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule, in other words, it is sufficient to prove indirect facts to presume that the inherited property actually belonged to the decedent in light of the empirical rule. However, in cases where the inherited property under the name of the decedent was transferred through a lawsuit prior to the commencement of inheritance, it does not necessarily mean that the presumption of the taxation requirement was clearly stated in light of the empirical rule, just because the decedent merely made a confession in the lawsuit before the commencement of inheritance, and in cases where indirect facts to presumed that the confession in the lawsuit was not false in light of the empirical rule, such as the health condition of the decedent and the property relationship of the decedent, it should be presumed that the relevant property actually belonged to the decedent, regardless of its name

2) Therefore, as to whether such indirect facts exist in the instant case, the health team, KimB and the deceased are between the fraud and the funeral, and even after KimB repaid the principal and interest on the instant land for a long time, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased was not cancelled, and as seen above, the fact that the deceased filed a lawsuit claiming cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer against the deceased in the name of the deceased for a prolonged period of four months prior to the deceased’s death and the death of the deceased. However, on the other hand, while KimB was discharged on February 17, 2006 from the above land under the name of the deceased, he exercised his right as the owner of the said land, and the deceased maintained normal recognition ability until the deceased worsens his own status on May 1, 2006. In light of the above, it cannot be readily concluded that the facts acknowledged above are merely a confession in the lawsuit claiming cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the instant land, and thus, it is not necessary to prove that the said land has been reverted to the deceased beyond the actual confession.

3) Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the instant land as the property reverted to the deceased at the time of the deceased’s death, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) In the process of transferring the ownership of the instant land to the deceased, KimB appears to have concluded a sales contract with the deceased or not received the sales price from the deceased, so even if there is no collateral security contract, etc., it can be inferred that the instant land was transferred in relation to monetary lending and borrowing relationships between the deceased and KimB.

B) In preparation for the disposal of the instant land, KimB failed to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the deceased on the said land in preparation for the disposal of the said land, but he filed a lawsuit demanding cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the said land due to the shock of KimE-Law, taking into account the deceased’s age and tax saving effect, while the area of the said land was clothes not disposed of as a large-scale relationship.

C) While the instant land is registered in the name of the deceased, KimB, as the owner of the said land, had KimF or ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the said land was used as a parking lot (the Defendant pointed out that the written consent on the use of the instant land submitted to ○○○○○○○○○, was the deceased’s name. However, at that time, KimB attempted to dispose of the said land through ○○○○○○○, where the actual owner was the deceased, and through the maximumGG, as the registered titleholder of the said land was the deceased.

D) The KimB appointed KimB at his own expense, and cancelled the registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimD and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party company, and KimB took place as the owner by having KimF, etc. use the instant land as a parking lot or filing a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration against the deceased, but the deceased and the plaintiff KimK did not raise any objection. Rather, although the deceased did not know of the specific discontinuance by independently managing his property, the plaintiff KimK stated that the instant land was owned by KimB only because it was the ownership of the instant land.

E) The Deceased, in North Korea, went forward from North Korea, had already prepared a testament 20 years prior to his death, but did not include the content of the instant land, and even if most of the real estate owned by the Deceased was disposed of before his death, the said land was left as it was, and the said land did not make any special remarks except that the said land owned by Kim KK was owned by KimB.

4) Therefore, this case’s disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are reasonable and acceptable.